Talk:Doctor Who: Children in Need

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duration of episode[edit]

Okay, Realplayer has it clocked at 8.02, but that includes the appeal sequences at the end of the online feed. Do we count that or not? If not, it'll probably be seven minutes. My mistake. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say 7 is good. Twice as long as sources were telling us! Can't trust anyone these days... Radagast 04:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those sequences didn't appear on the BBC One broadcast. It seemed like about 5 minutes to me - but that was just me looking at the minute hand on my watch while I was watching it... PaulHammond 20:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was 3 1/2 minutes of original material, when you strip the titles, credits and reprise out - I haven't timed it though. DavidFarmbrough 10:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just timed it myself - it comes to almost exactly 5 minutes of new material (not including the appeal sequences) -UK-Logician-2006 15:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the broadcast, if you time it from the start of the reprise to the final fade out on the "Doctor Who will return..." bit, it's just under 7 minutes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but I personally wouldn't consider CGI as 'new material', as such images could easily be generated within a few minutes given the expertise. -UK-Logician-2006 15:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the Christmas special?[edit]

Does anyone know if this sequence is going to be part of the Christmas Invasion? I can't imagine a key post-regeneration scene only ever being shown as part of a telethon ... though I imagine it'll make for a sweet DVD extra. 23skidoo 04:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, no - this was written and filmed after TCI was finished. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's insane. This isn't some sort of throwaway -- this is the post-regeneration sequence. 23skidoo 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It still might end up on the DVD with The Christmas Invasion. Don't take Dimensions in Time as a standard: one of the reasons that will never see commercial release is that it was a last-minute affair with a huge cast, and the contracts had to be drawn up quickly, so it was agreed that it would not be released on video or aired again. This was planned well in advance, and had a cast of two. I'd wager that it'll be on the DVD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a million times better than Dimensions. But the thing is this is a key moment and a major scene for Rose that to be honest a lot of folks were waiting to see. In many respects I feel it was wasted on a telethon. If I hadn't been idly surfing just now I'd have never heard of it, and odds are the CBC here in Canada aren't going to tack it on to the start of Christmas Invasion. I wish in some respects I hadn't seen it because now I will consider Christmas Invasion to be an incomplete story if it doesn't show any of this. Of course it's also possible TCI will have a completely different take on events, which would render the special something of an alternate universe story ... 23skidoo 04:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt that we'll need to resort to alternate universes. I'm guessing that we'll see an abridged version of this in the pre-titles of TCI, in the "previously on Doctor Who" bit, for the sake of anyone who missed the special. (Oh, and you'll note that I said the contract thing was "one of the reasons" DiT will never see commercial release. The other, of course, is that it's utter pants. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to obtain a copy of DiT a few years ago. Although it was great seeing all the actors especially Tom Baker back in harness and Lalla Ward (my personal fav.), I agree with you that it was a case of trying to cram way too much into too short a time. Making matter worse is that viewers had to settle for this in lieu of the Dark Dimension reunion TV movie that got canned apparently at the last minute. Anyway, one good thing about the Tennant special is that it does give us a preview of what he'll be like, and while the "hopping" was a bit OTT, I think he'll do fine ... except for the disconcerting fact that he actually looks a bit younger than Billie Piper! 23skidoo 04:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need for this scene to be in the beginning of TCI. Consider this hypothetical scene: we see the TARDIS crash in the beginning. Rose rushes out, meets Jackie, tells her breathlessly, "I don't know. First he changed... well, he told me he changed, I don't know if I believe him... then he started acting crazy, then the TARDIS crashed..." and we're in. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. And, as I said to someone on OG, it's not like Doctor Who hasn't started a new Doctor's era with him stumbling out of the TARDIS in post-regenerative confusion before. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we haven't had a key scene being performed in a relatively obscure venue before, either. (No offence to CiN but unless you're in the UK it's obscure). With the exception of the Ninth Doctor, every new Doctor's era has begun with a sequence such as that shown in the CiN special, and IMO it's not only obligatory but necessary for the establishment of the character. In the CiN special we get to see Rose react to the change. Obviously she fell in love with the Ninth Doctor (the whole Bad Wolf thing made that clear), and now there's this new guy and she doesn't know who to trust. IMO such a scene is obligatory and to just start things cold is a cheat and is the first major screw up in an otherwise exemplary performance. Guaranteed it's gonna piss off a lot of people, especially the Americans once they finally start getting the show. As I said earlier this isn't a DiT throwaway, or a piece of nonsense like Search Out Space. It's a key scene and one that to be honest I fully expected to open TCI even before I heard of the CiN special. 23skidoo 05:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Shearman, he say: "It was never part of The Christmas Invasion in any form, and was conceived after that script had been filmed." [1] Angmering 12:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the Telethon, the Telethon was an Thames Television thing (albeit copied from a Jerry Lewis American programme) that was abandoned since their franchise loss. It was Children in Need. This was added after The Christmas Invasion was in the can, which indicates that it is optional. I would imagine some of the ideas and some very similar dialogue will already be in The Christmas Invasion. Dimensions In Time did have some things going for it, like 3D, all the actors, the EastEnders, the theme music. The hopping scene is comparable to Tom Baker's running on the spot and skipping, post-regeneration, in Robot.DavidFarmbrough 10:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a USA resident I don't know much about EastEnders, but the Dimensions in Time theme music? You must be joking! ;) --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

Because I'm still not satisfied with this, I've got a new idea: We have one article covering both DiT and this thing, which would also allow us to add any other things, which, perhaps not as notable on their own, could exist in one umbrella article (A Fix with Sontarans might be worth a merge as well). Thoughts?--Sean|Black 20:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the fact that this ties in with the current series continuity (see the discussion above), I believe this should remain a separate article. If it really needs to be merged anywhere, I recommend merging it with the article on The Christmas Invasion since whether this gets aired on the series or not, it's still a prologue. I don't want to see it mixed up with DiT or any of the other half-assed productions. 23skidoo 20:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recommend a merge. It's not much different from Mission to the Unknown, which is the prologue to The Daleks' Master Plan - it's a separate production, different directors, it will have more information on the amount of money it raised and its ratings when those are published. There's enough info here for it not to be a stub. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm fine with that.--Sean|Black 23:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This special should definitely not be discussed in the same article as the Dimensions in Time short in my opinion. They are totally different from each other - one was classic series, this is new series - one was comedy charity thing, this one was a serious scene played straight. PaulHammond 20:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I already retracted my offer. Let's just forget it.--Sean|Black 20:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canonicity[edit]

While I hate to mention canonicity, surely there is little doubt that the special will be considered canonical by the production team? It was written by Russell, has no unusual plot elements (like half the cast of EastEnders!) that might make it not fit with the Whoniverse, and includes the end of The Parting of the Ways - and, as far as we know, sets up the opening of The Christmas Invasion. Would it be better to remove the line about whether or not it is canon?

Whouk (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain. The fact it's written as an afterthought and may not even be referenced in the Christmas Invasion opens the question as to whether it might not be somehow contradicted later or replaced with something different entirely. I know part of that is still my nose being a little out of joint over such an important moment being wasted (again no offence intended to CiN) on a production that in theory no one outside the UK will ever see on TV. I won't lose any sleep over the statement being removed, pending I suppose what happens in the opening moments of Christmas Invasion. 23skidoo 12:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have already established that canonicity is arbitrary, so why not everyone have their own canon? DavidFarmbrough 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason not to mention it in the article, although I'd argue that whether or not the production team consider something canon is relevant when the series is still in production. Whouk (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed not to mention it...however there is a counter argument that the author of a work doesn't 'own' it, it is the consumer. DavidFarmbrough 17:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a litmus test for canonicity: At the end of "Parting of the Ways", the Doctor and Rose leave, with Jack left behind. The Doctor is apparrently unaware that Jack is alive, and Rose appearantly remembers little of what she did while in God-mode. Dialogue in the Children in Need Special, however, indicates that both the Doctor and Rose knew that Jack was still alive. I propose that when the new season starts, we pay close attention to any mention of Jack. If the Doctor and/or Rose appear to believe he's dead, then the CiN special is non-canon. Ravenswood 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure internal consistency can ever be taken as evidence of canonicity. You could use the same argument to rule the whole of the new series non-canonical on the grounds that there are elements that don't match the old series. I can't imagine RTD thought "I can ignore the fact that the Doctor shouldn't know about Jack because this isn't canonical." It's just something for the fans to explain creatively. Whouk (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, we don't know that Rose even knew that Jack was dead until she brought him back to life, so if she's forgotten that she brought him back to life, she may also have forgotten that he was dead - or she may by now have remembered both! And the Doctor may be comforting her (pretending Jack is still alive) or maybe it's his post-regenerative amnesia - we can't win with these things, sorry. DavidFarmbrough 12:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And to pick this up now that Jack has appeared again in the series, I think Utopia is pretty clear the Doctor did know Jack was still alive. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Disaster vs. Wild Catastrophe[edit]

I'm at work and can't check, but I think the quote in "Logopolis" is "wild catastrophes and calls to man the battle stations." In any case, even if "universal disaster" was said at one point, it seems like all the examples of the Cloister Bell ringing -- the infinite recursion in "Logopolis," the danger of reaching Event One in "Castrovalva," the Dalek Time Corridor in "Resurrection," the imminent (and impending ;) ) crash landing in the CiN special, and whatever the heck was going on in the TV movie ;) -- were all threats to the TARDIS more than the universe. In contrast, there have been plenty of threats to the universe as a whole that didn't sound the bell; Sutekh and the entropy released by the closing of the CVEs are two instances that come to mind. So I think even if someone did say "universal disaster," it could be written off as hyperbole. Your thoughts? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back and checked the opening and the Doctor does say "it's a sort of communications device, reserved for wild catastrophes and sudden calls to man the battle stations." I think somewhere along the way it got confused with the Doctor warning that the destruction of Logopolis would cause universal catastrophe or disaster or something along those lines. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian broadcast on Dec. 26?[edit]

Apparently The Christmas Invasion is going to be shown in a 90-minute timeslot on CBC on Dec. 26. Since that gives extra time even with commericals for extra stuff, rumors are kicking around that the CBC might show the CiN special as a bonus or perhaps even incorporate it somehow into the episode. Has anyone heard if it's going to be shown? 23skidoo 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Credits[edit]

We have David Tennant listed here as 'Doctor Who'; however, there's no role credit in the episode! The only two credits, in fact, are David and Billie in the opening titles.

The problem here is that POTW credits David as 'Doctor Who' (in the closing 'introducing' credit); but TCI credits him as 'The Doctor'. Which to use? Personally, I vote neither; as there were no official credits, yank the Credits section entirely. Thoughts? Radagast 02:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were there credits at the end of CiN itself? (If anyone was still awake :)) - SoM 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there weren't any credits. --Whouk (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there wouldn't be much point in putting credits for something transmitted between 2100 and 2130 at 0300 or so the following morning... - SoM 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I misread your question. I didn't stay up :) However, credits accompany payment (Equity rules and all that), so when actors give their time for free, they aren't credited. --Whouk (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might have, that's why I specified times :)
But they WERE credited, just in the opening titles only - and in the US style, names only, no roles. Hence why I reverted you putting them down as uncredited :) - SoM 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course they were! Blimey, I really am hard of thinking this week. Josiah's changes make sense to me. --Whouk (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fudged it - Doctor Who Children in Need special (2005)#Cast - SoM 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like "no role specified", which to me suggests that Tennant and Piper could have played roles other than the Doctor and Rose. So I changed it, and added a note about the lack of end credits and how Tennant wasn't listed as "Doctor Who" or "The Doctor". Is this a better compromise? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are overthinking this. Who cares if they didn't receive proper screen credit. I challenge anyone to find a source that says they played roles other than the Doctor and Rose. I'm with Josiah on his change. It's just common sense! 23skidoo 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a bit of that occasionally. Stopped clock right twice a day and all that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Naming of Names[edit]

Just got my hands on the Series Two companion, and one of the tidbits that comes out of it is that the pages for this production were headed Doctor Who: Children in Need. The Companion also lists it as Children in Need. Now that we have (kind of) a specific name for it, should this be moved to "Children in Need (Doctor Who)" or "Doctor Who: Children in Need" or a variation thereof? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree with that. Angmering 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which title would you prefer? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Doctor Who: Children in Need looks better, personally. Brackets in titles always look messy, I feel. Angmering 16:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share Paul's dislike of parentheses, but I'd be OK with Doctor Who: Children in Need, since here on Wikipedia parentheses usually suggest disambiguation, and it's not like we're really expecting there to be confusion between this mini-episode and the larger "Children in Need" fundraiser. My only concern is that an article under this title might look as if it was about the history of connections between Doctor Who and Children in Need, rather than about this one scene. That might support Sean's earlier merger idea. (Was it the 1984 Children in Need that had a parade of Who actors coming out of a TARDIS, some in costume and some not?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the BBC book, Doctor Who: Companions and Allies, the name of this episode is Born Agian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.179.3 (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we confirm this in any way? — Edokter • Talk • 11:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a BBC publication, the book itself is a reliable source. We don't need to be able to find it online, if that's what you're asking. (I haven't seen the book personally, but I've seen discussion elsewhere about its use of this title — no, we don't know where they got it from, but I don't doubt that the book gives this title to the mini-episode.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've heard about it, then I guess it's good. Shall we move there? — Edokter • Talk • 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of two minds on that. On the one hand, "Born Again" seems more like a name than "Doctor Who: Children in Need" or "Pudsey Cutaway" or anything else the mini-episode has been called. On the other hand, it seems like it wasn't used in production and it looks to me as if it was created for the book. Part of me thinks that it makes sense to move the article, but part of me thinks it would be like moving Doctor Who (1996 film) to Enemy Within (Doctor Who) (another title that was applied afterwards but was never used in production or promotion).
For the time being, my inclination is to put "also known as Born Again" in the introductory line, with a ref to Companions and Allies, but to leave the article where it is. But I'm interested in hearing what other people think about this, 'cause it's not at all clear-cut. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it with a citation as best I can manage without having the book at hand. It would be great if someone who has the book could add the page number to the citation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born Again sourcing[edit]

It's also Born Again in Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale - The Final Chapter in both the "Who's Who" section in the front (p27):

Euros Lyn: Director of 1.2,... 4.17/4.18 and 2005's Children in Need mini-episode Born Again...

--and in the Index at the back (p701), where the title is used in exactly the same format as Time Crash [Born Again (2005 Children In Need mini-episode) and Time Crash (2007 Children In Need mini-episode), respectively. Also listed similarly is Attack of the Graske (interactive mini-episode), while all other episodes have their production code in the brackets - e.g. School Reunion (2.3).] - BrainiacBlink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If this is true about it appearing in The Writer's Tale that way then I might have to add my vote to moving the page to Born Again (Doctor Who). "Children in Need" was never really more than a place holder title anyway. --DocNox (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different version on the DVD?[edit]

According to a discussion at the TrekBBS forum, the version of the CiN Special on the DVD is not the one that was broadcast, and in fact apparently it's a "rough edit" version because the BBC was unable to locate a master of the version that was transmitted! Can anyone confirm this? If true, it should be mentioned in the article. 23skidoo 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to the final edit, but with an obviously unfinished soundtrack. What a mess. --KJBracey 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RTD said as much somewhere... I think in an issue of Doctor Who Magazine but I don't know which one. --GracieLizzie 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US airing[edit]

I am sure this never happened. See the Christmas Invasion talk page. Angmering (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Regular cast"[edit]

From the article: Apart from the recap of the events at the conclusion of "The Parting of the Ways" and the time tunnel effects, this is one of only three stories that take place entirely within the confines of the TARDIS and features only the regular cast, the others being the First Doctor story The Edge of Destruction and the later Children in Need special "Time Crash". I would have to argue that Time Crash does NOT feature only regular cast, as Peter Davison was hardly regular cast by 2007. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's been removed. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's back again129.139.1.68 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's now "Space" / "Time" to consider as well. I'm going to remove this fact again on the grounds that that there's a question over "Time Crash" (as discussed above) and because it opens a can of worms on what is a Doctor Who story. Saying that this is "one of only three stories..." presupposes that it is a story itself, yet it's not an official "Doctor Who" serial. What about the "Meanwhile in the TARDIS" scenes from the Series 5 DVDs? Too many ambiguous questions.81.98.16.17 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who:_Children_in_Need&oldid=1206994732"